I’ve put together a few posts here on the subject of the media pushing an activist narrative instead of the facts of the case when it comes to the Atlanta massage parlor massacre that took place this week.
One, on the subject of the ridiculous attack on Chip Roy, the other on the media ignoring or contradicting the cops and the FBI even when they interview them about the case.
It’s rare that I write a post here at the Right Scoop simply to tell you about another person’s article, but you might not otherwise be inclined to read something from this particular source, and in this case you ABSOLUTELY should.
“This story’s coverage is proof, it seems to me, that American journalists have officially abandoned the habit of attempting any kind of ‘objectivity’ in reporting these stories. We are now in the enlightened social justice world of ‘moral clarity’ and ‘narrative-shaping,'” writes Andrew Sullivan.
Yes. Andrew Sullivan
Here’s the truth: We don’t yet know why this man did these horrible things. It’s probably complicated, or, as my therapist used to say, “multi-determined.” That’s why we have thorough investigations and trials in America. We only have one solid piece of information as to motive, which is the confession by the mass killer to law enforcement: that he was a religious fundamentalist who was determined to live up to chastity and repeatedly failed, as is often the case. Like the 9/11 bombers or the mass murderer at the Pulse nightclub, he took out his angst on the source of what he saw as his temptation, and committed mass murder. This is evil in the classic fundamentalist sense: a perversion of religion and sexual repression into violence.
We have yet to find any credible evidence of anti-Asian hatred or bigotry in this man’s history. Maybe we will. We can’t rule it out. But we do know that his roommates say they once asked him if he picked the spas for sex because the women were Asian. And they say he denied it, saying he thought those spas were just the safest way to have quick sex. That needs to be checked out more.
And yet. Well, you know what’s coming. Accompanying one original piece on the known facts, the NYT ran nine — nine! — separate stories about the incident as part of the narrative that this was an anti-Asian hate crime, fueled by white supremacy and/or misogyny. Not to be outdone, the WaPo ran sixteen separate stories on the incident as an anti–Asian white supremacist hate crime. Sixteen! One story for the facts; sixteen stories on how critical race theory would interpret the event regardless of the facts. For good measure, one of their columnists denounced reporting of law enforcement’s version of events in the newspaper, because it distracted attention from the “real” motives. Today, the NYT ran yet another full-on critical theory piece disguised as news on how these murders are proof of structural racism and sexism — because some activists say they are.
Seriously, that’s downright amazing, even for someone like me knowing who the heck these people are, watching and reading them as I do every weekend.
There is so much more in this piece. Sullivan calls out site after site, show after show, paper after paper over it. These places didn’t report or even consider the details because, he writes, “in their worldview, they didn’t need to.”
“What you see here is social justice ideology insisting, as Dean Baquet temporarily explained, that intent doesn’t matter. What matters is impact. The individual killer is in some ways irrelevant. His intentions are not material,” Sullivan continues. “He is merely a vehicle for the structural oppressive forces critical theorists believe in. And this ‘story’ is what the media elites decided to concentrate on: the thing that, so far as we know, didn’t happen.”
I really urge you to read this entire thing here and to share it and spread it around. It’s so important that people see how far gone our press already is, how deeply they are skewed from truth. You might say it’s CRITICAL.